Probing the Etic Vs. Emic Nature of Consumer Ethnocentrism Srinivas Durvasula Marquette University, [email protected]
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette Marketing Faculty Research and Publications Marketing, Department of 1-1-2014 Probing the Etic vs. Emic Nature of Consumer Ethnocentrism Srinivas Durvasula Marquette University, [email protected] Steven Lysonski Marquette University, [email protected] Published version. Innovative Marketing, Vol. 10, No. 1 (2014): 7-16. Permalink. © 2014 Business Perspectives. Used with permission. Innovative Marketing, Volume 10, Issue 1, 2014 Srinivas Durvasula (USA), Steven Lysonski (USA) Probing the etic vs. emic nature of consumer ethnocentrism: cross-national evidence Abstract The consumer ethnocentrism concept and its measure, the CETSCALE, remain very popular in cross-national research chiefly because they serve as a means to understand consumer attitudes toward imports. But the usage of consumer ethnocentrism and its measure are based on the premise that they have universal or etic properties. Conflicting studies, however, find that the scale’s structure is far more complicated than initially believed, and that it may not be uni- dimensional as originally proposed. Is it possible that the consumer ethnocentrism concept and its measure are culture bound? The goal of this study is to resolve this ambiguity. Introduction One such construct that was developed in North America and applied frequently in other countries is The field of consumer behavior is heavily dependent the consumer ethnocentrism concept and its on measurement scales to quantify psychological corresponding measurement scale (CETSCALE). We characteristics of consumers. As globalization use the consumer ethnocentrism construct as an accelerates, researchers are keen to employ these exemplar to demonstrate how to probe the emic vs. measures for cross-national or multi-country research. etic nature of a concept and its measure. Etic deals Of concern, however, is that Western countries have with the universality of the consumer ethnocentrism been the primary source of these scales. Watters concept and the psychometric applicability of the (2013) discusses a 2008 survey of the top psychology CETSCALE to other countries; in contrast, the notion journals (often a source for consumer research) that of emic focuses on the concept or scale being relevant shows that 96% of the subjects used in psychological only to one culture. Since the CETSCALE has been studies from 2003 to 2007 were Westerners; 70% were administered to foreign consumers with an implied from the USA. The goal of this paper is to explore the confidence a priori that it is as valid and reliable as it is robustness of the consumer ethnocentrism concept in the USA, researchers have accepted the scale with a and its measure regarding their application in level of blind confidence (i.e., imposed etic) in its diverse countries. efficacy to capture the ethnocentrism property. More One issue that begs an answer deals with the etic vs. attention needs to be given to etic considerations emic question concerning the relevance of these regarding the concept per se and its scale. scales to foreign countries, particularly non-Western The scale is also assumed to mirror ethnocentrism as ones. Conceptually, an etic construct is a theoretical a uni-dimensional construct which is again an idea that is assumed to apply to all nations or imposed etic. But is this mirror more complicated? cultures while an emic construct is one that applies Are there more dimensions in the scale than to only one nation or culture. Recent research has believed and are these dimensions specific to found that aspects of human nature that are different cultures? Douglas and Nijssen (2003) considered universal (i.e., etic) may in fact be caution researchers that the scale may not be uni- culturally bound and a product of social learning in dimensional as they found for the Netherlands. that culture (i.e., emic) (Henrich and Boyd, 1998; Hence, the faith that researchers have taken in the Henrich, Heine and Norenzayan, 2010). Indeed, structure of the scale and its imposed etic may be one’s culture may deeply shape human cognition overly optimistic. One foundation of the CETSCALE and influence consciousness and decision making. is its morality dimension; yet, Henrich, Heine and Cultural bias arises when researchers assume that an Norenzayan (2010) observed that the moral reasoning emic construct is intrinsically etic. The result is found in Western societies is different elsewhere. referred to as an imposed etic where a culture specific construct is incorrectly imposed on a Our research investigates the etic and emic different culture. In fact, a number of scholars have properties of the consumer ethnocentrism construct argued that some scales developed in the USA may and the CETSCALE, and examines if the scale is be irrelevant to foreign consumers (de Mooij, 2010; uni-dimensional. Specifically, is the consumer Douglas and Nijssen, 2003; Herche, Swenson, and ethnocentrism construct equivalent cross-nationally Verbeke, 1996). In essence the argument deals with or is it country specific? Correspondingly, is the the etic vs. emic debate. CETSCALE invariant across cultures or should researchers be chided for ignoring the emic question as they confidently use the scale beyond North Srinivas Durvasula, Steven Lysonski, 2014. America? To achieve our goal, we choose two 7 Innovative Marketing, Volume 10, Issue 1, 2014 culturally different countries for our examination: superiority of one’s own group, Douglas and Nijssen Singapore and New Zealand. (2003) raised questions about the construct’s relevance to smaller countries that have open The rest of the paper is organized as follows. First, economies, high levels of foreign trade, few major we discuss the origin and application of the domestic manufacturers and dependence on imported ethnocentrism concept and its measure. Sub- products. Their concern, therefore, is rooted in the sequently, we examine emic and etic issues relevant emic theme. Hence, we do not know whether to this construct and scale followed by research consumer ethnocentrism and the CETSCALE can be questions and our methodology. The results are then applied reliably in such countries. Our study discussed with conclusions and implications. addresses this shortcoming by comparing the findings 1. Background discussion from the city-state of Singapore, which is at the hub of South East Asia, with those from New Zealand, The concept of ethnocentrism was introduced in sociology by Sumner (1906) to distinguish between which is relatively more isolated, but a developed in-groups with which a person identifies and out- economy nonetheless. groups lacking this identification. Ethnocentric 2. Emic vs. etic issues of the consumer people prefer the in-group over the out-groups to ethnocentrism concept such an extent that symbols and values of the in- group become an object of pride whereas symbols Cross-culturally, a concept or its measure can be and values of the out-group are likely to become either emic or etic. Emic models view a specific objects of contempt (LeVine and Campbell, 1972). behavior as specific to that culture; hence, consumer Shimp and Sharma (1987) extended this concept to behavior must be understood in the context of a marketing and called it “consumer ethnocentrism,” particular culture. In contrast, etic models view a defined as “the beliefs held by American consumers specific behavior as universally generalizable, about the appropriateness, indeed morality, of allowing for comparisons among consumers in purchasing foreign made products”. Based on this varying cultures (i.e., cross-cultural) on that definition, purchasing foreign products is considered behavior. Hence, if it can be shown that the wrong because it hurts the domestic economy, consumer ethnocentrism concept can be concep- causes loss of jobs, and is unpatriotic (Shimp and tually understood similarly by respondents and that Sharma, 1987). To highly ethnocentric consumers, its measure is equivalent (or invariant) across domestic products are viewed as superior while cultures, we have established some degree of etic foreign made products are objects of contempt. proof of its universal application. Of the many Accordingly, Shimp and Sharma (1987) developed issues regarding cross-cultural research methodo- the consumer ethnocentric tendency scale, logies, the equivalence of concepts and their abbreviated as the CETSCALE with 17 items and a measures is viewed as the single dominant one (cf., reduced 10-item version. Albaum and Baker, 2005; Berry, 1980; Craig and Empirically, studies show that consumer ethno- Douglas, 2005). centrism negatively impacts consumer behavior. For an imposed etic validity to be acceptable, there Specifically, consumer ethnocentrism related unfavo- must be equivalence of consumer ethnocentrism and rably to the following: attitudes toward the ad its measure between the source nation of the (Reardon, Miller, Vida and Kim, 2005), purchase construct and the country where it is to be applied intention of foreign brands (Suphellen and Ritten- (Albaum and Baker, 2005). If foreign consumers burg, 2001), attitudes toward imports (Sharma, construe a construct differently or respond in unique Shimp and Shin, 1995), evaluations of foreign ways to its scales, Douglas and Craig (1983) warn services (de Ruyter, Van Birgelen and Wetzels, us that “relevant constructs will be unique to a given 1998), preferences toward foreign products over country” and therefore lack this universal quality. If domestic